Ruling that Family First did not qualify for charitable status and with it the tax benefits that follow, the Supreme Court said Family First’s overt political advocacy meant it could not satisfy the legal test for a charity.
Legal definition of a charity is governed by the Charities Act and coloured by centuries of case law precedent. Charities do not pay tax on their income. Donations made to charities registered with the Charities Commission generate a tax rebate for the donor. Activities ‘advancing education’ can be charitable.
Family First New Zealand promotes ‘traditional family values.’ Its trust deed explicitly sets out education as one of its objects: promoting research, publishing relevant material, participating in public debate and educating the public.
There is a thin line between education and propaganda, the Supreme Court said. Family First activities had crossed this line, it ruled. Many Family First research papers lacked balance or neutrality, the court said. These papers sought to persuade people to Family First’s point of view and to seek support for its efforts to bring about, or resist, a change to the law. Family First published research papers on topics as diverse as euthanasia, child poverty, gender identity, screen time, sex education, abortion and the effect of regular family dinners on family life.
Attorney-General v. Family First New Zealand – Supreme Court (28.6.22)
22.111